WIND FARM DEBATE CONTINUES IN BROWN COUNTY

SOURCE WGBA NBC 26, www.nbc26.com 8 July 2010

Wind Turbines is again a controversial topic in the southern Brown County community of Hollandtown. At the core of the issue, plans to have turbines dotting farmland cross Brown County. Opponents like Carl Johnson say it’s bad for property values and even worse for your health. “Contracts get signed with people who will host turbines before other people in the community know what is happening and have any say in that.”

Invenergy hopes to build 100 industrial turbines in the county. The company says 120 landowners have already signed up. It already has wind farms up in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties. Invenergy’s senior development manager says those projects are safe and they bring in money paying landowners and taxes.

Johnson says not everyone is on board. “They see them as symbols of America’s progress toward energy independence, but beneath those turbines there are some serious problems regarding health and safety and water resources that really everyone in the state needs to be concerned about.”

SECOND STORY:

Click on the image below to hear Dick Koltz speak about why he wants out of his wind contract

“I just feel they could have been more on the up and up some of the people they sent around just outright lied to a lot of the people.”

-Dick Koltz

WIND TURBINE CONTRACT DISPUTE

SOURCE: WGBA NBC 26, www.nbc26.com

July 8 2010

As Dick Koltz takes a ride through his farmland he says he can’t imagine the sight of a wind turbine on his property.

“The more I dug the more I learned, there are many questions, health, safety.”

But before he did his research, Koltz signed a contract with Invenergy to put a wind turbine on a portion of his land. Invenergy management says the turbines are safe and create revenue for landowners and taxes for the county. But it’s a decision Koltz says he now regrets and is trying to reverse.

“I just feel they could have been more on the up and up some of the people they sent around just outright lied to a lot of the people.”

Koltz joined others at this meeting sponsored by Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, to hear more about the effects of wind turbines on the proposed wind farm Invenergy wants to build in southern Brown County.

“Beneath those turbines there are some serious problems regarding health and safety,” says Carl Johnson who is against the proposed wind farm.

Questions Koltz wishes he had asked before he signed a contract for a turbine on his farm.

“I’m not anti anything good, but I don’t think this is good, I just can’t see the benefit when the cost is so high.”

THIRD FEATURE

STUDY OUTLINES WIND TURBINE CONCERNS. DR. PIERPONT: 14% OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED

SOURCE:The Journal, www.ogd.com

July 9 2010

By Matt McAllister,

HAMMOND – The author of “Wind Turbine Syndrome: a Report on a Natural Experiment” told the Hammond Wind Committee on Monday that 14 percent of the town’s residential dwellings will be adversely affected if the entire wind overlay zone is filled with wind turbines.

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, a Malone physician who received her master’s degree from John Hopkins University and a doctorate in population biology from Princeton University, told the committee, “I was specifically trained to do research on free-living, uncontrolled animal populations, including methods for structuring observations to turn the observations into quantitative and analyzable data.

“I used this research training in my study of wind turbine health effects to structure and analyze the information I gathered from affected people. I used my classical medical training from John Hopkins to actually gather the information.

“A good patient history, we were taught, and my experience has borne out, provides a doctor with about 80 percent of the information he needs to diagnose a problem. I conducted thorough, structural clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects,” she said.

According to Wikipedia’s website, “Dr. Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, has said that noise can be an important disadvantage of wind turbines, especially when building the wind turbines very close to urban environments. She says that wind turbines may produce sounds that affect the mood of people and may cause physiological problems such as insomnia, headaches, tinnitus, vertigo and nausea.”

Critics have suggested that Dr. Pierpont’s research, theories, and self-published book are unscientific and included only a handful of study subjects, while others agree that wind turbines actually do have adverse effects on the health of people living in proximity to them.

The predictions she made for the Hammond community, along with a map she constructed outlining 2010 residential dwellings within 1,500 meters of the wind overlay zone and recorded wind leases, contained some eye-openers.

* “You can estimate that 152 households in Hammond Township would be affected in the wind overlay zone and the 1,500 meter buffer, assuming the entire wind overlay zone had turbines in it.”

* “Using the number of 2 percent of households likely to have to move away from the turbines, you can estimate 21 out of the 152 affected households having to move, and estimate the monetary costs to these households and to your town. From your population number of 2635, all ages, you can estimate 316 are highly likely to be affected on the basis of 12 percent of Americans having migraine disorder.”

* “Children do not have to be excluded from this number because they, too, have inherited migraine tendencies. In my study, I found that the children of adults with migraine were affected like the adults with migraine in terms of their susceptibility to headaches around wind turbines.”

* “You can also see that you have a population of 766 over age 55, and a population of 146 age 5 and under, both groups likely to have higher numbers of affected people.”

Attempts to contact several members of the wind committee for comment or reaction to Dr. Pierpont’s presentation were unsuccessful.

The wind committee meets next on July 21 at 6:30 p.m. at Hammond Central School. David B. Duff, committee facilitator, says representatives from Iberdrola Renewables Inc. will be in attendance for a presentation.

Subjects to be discussed, according to Mr. Duff, include the development process, permitting, interconnection, engineering, potential sound issues, and issues related to real property taxes.

A “roundtable” discussion is to follow Iberdrola’s presentation, Mr. Duff said, with several local agencies and groups participating, including representatives from the St. Lawrence County Planning Office, St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency, St. Lawrence County Real Property Tax Office, Hammond Central School and Concerned Residents of Hammond, as well as from the Hammond town and planning boards.

“The intent of such a forum will be to develop a clear understanding of the developer’s plans, as well as to further determine the role and interaction of the town, county, and school district and/or others involved in this process,” Mr. Duff said.

SECOND FEATURE:

 

WHAT'S THE LATEST? 

IN THE NEWS:

-LANDOWNERS WISE-UP ABOUT THE WAYS OF WIND DEVELOPERS

-WHO PAYS FOR THE HIGH COST OF "FREE" WIND?

-WHO MAKES ALL THE MONEY FROM "FREE" WIND?

FROM THE WIND SITING DOCKET:

Click here to download testimony submitted to the PSC by Kevin Kawula regarding wind turbines effect on weather radar, birds and bats, CO2 emissons, and more. The PDF includes photos and graphs.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC took public comment on the recently approved draft siting rules until the July 7th, 2010 deadline.

The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes, 500 feet from property lines.

CLICK HERE to go to the PSC website, then type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted.



“The PSC has ruled that it won’t do anything to help people who are having problems with wind farms and has basically told them to take their case to civil court”

The former home of Ann and Jason Wirtz now sits abandoned near the Forward Energy Wind Center, which went online in 2008 in Brownsville. (Photo by Dave Wasinger)

CLICK HERE to read about the family who once lived in this home.

PSC REJECTS OAKFIELD FAMILY'S WIND FARM CLAIM

 SOURCE: Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

 June 21, 2010 By Colleen Kottke,

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has rejected a complaint filed by an Oakfield family about the Forward Energy Wind Center.

Jason and Ann Wirtz contended that the Forward Energy Wind Center cost them their alpaca-breeding business and created such significant health problems for the family that they were eventually forced out of their home.

PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said the commission is not the proper forum for personal injury claims.

In the claim, the Wirtzes asked the PSC to reopen the Forward Wind Energy Center proceedings to hold a hearing about prior health claims from residents living within the wind farm. The Wirtzes hoped to convince the PSC at a hearing to require Invenergy to compensate the family for prior damages.

The Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office advised the PSC that it cannot do so.

In a 12-page decision released on June 18, the PSC said that according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the agency has no legal basis to assert jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed in April by the Wirtz family that claims the wind farm caused them personal injury and diminished their property value.

Disappointment

Madison-based attorney Ed Marion, who represents the Wirtzes, said the decision handed down last week was a disappointment.

“The PSC has ruled that it won’t do anything to help people who are having problems with wind farms and has basically told them to take their case to civil court,” Marion said.

The couple purchased the sprawling farmhouse on County Trunk YY in Dodge County in 1996 and said they poured countless hours and money into remodeling the home and upgrading the property.

Before the wind farm went on line, the Wirtz family made the decision to sell their home and eight-acre property appraised at $320,000. With no buyers, the Wirtzes eventually pulled the home off the market in 2008.

The family argued to the PSC that the noise and vibration from the nearby wind turbines caused sleep deprivation, headaches and other physical ailments. In addition, the Wirtzes said their alpaca-breeding herd was adversely affected.

The Wirtzes abandoned their home last year and moved to Oakfield. The home was sold at a sheriff’s sale in May for $106,740.

Ann Wirtz said she wasn’t “shocked” by the PSC’s decision.

“We’re not sure what we’re going to do right now,” she said. “We’re still exploring input for our legal options.”

While the family could file a lawsuit in civil court, they also have the right to appeal the PSC decision.

 

WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE

Monday, June 21, 2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m.

Docket 1-AC-231

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Flambeau River Conference Room (3rd Floor)
Public Service Commission Building
610 North Whitney Way, Madison, Wisconsin

 [Click here for map]

Audio or video of the meeting will be broadcast from the PSC Website beginning at 1:30.

CLICK HERE to visit the PSC website, click on the button on the left that says "Live Broadcast". Sometimes the meetings don't begin right on time. The broadcasts begin when the meetings do so keep checking back if you don't hear anything at the appointed start time.



FROM WIND SITING COUNCIL MEMBER, MICHAEL VICKERMAN:

“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these turbines,” [Michael Vickerman] says, “so over the past seven years the opposition has refined its arguments and framed them in the realm of protecting public health and safety. Here, as far as I’m concerned, is where they reveal their antiwind bias.

They allege that they can’t sleep, they suffer from nausea—they express their discomfort in the most hysterical terms, and I think they basically work themselves into a very visceral hatred for wind. I don’t even know if they have a philosophical objection to wind. They’re maybe congenitally unhappy people and they needed to project their fears and anxieties and resentments onto something new that comes into the neighborhood and disrupts things.”  

-Chicago Reader, May 14, 2009

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: For those who have not been following the Wirtz family story, we re-post a story written by Lynda Barry after an interview with Ann and Jason Wirtz in June of 2009 before they moved from their home because of wind turbine noise.

Lynda Barry is a Wisconsin writer who is currently doing research for a book about life in Wisconsin's industrial wind projects.

 Interview with Ann and Jason Wirtz

N1157 Hwy YY

Oakfield, WI 53065

Dodge County, Wisconsin

Conducted on the evening of May 2, 2009

 WIND TURBINE NOISE FORCES WISCONSIN FAMILY TO ABANDON HOME

 TOWN OF OAKFIELD- Ann and Jason Wirtz have a pretty Wisconsin farmhouse near the Town of Oakfield.  It’s the kind of place that had people stopping by to ask if the family would consider selling it.

 “They’d just pull into our driveway,” says Ann, a mother of four. “There were people who said if we ever decided to sell it, we should call them.” 

 Although turn-of-the-century house needed a lot of work when they bought it, the Wirtz family didn’t mind. They planned to stay. Both Ann and Jason grew up in the area and wanted to raise their children there.

 “I thought we were going to live here for the rest of our lives.” says Ann. “I thought one of our kids was going to live here after us.”

 This was before 86 industrial wind turbines went up around their home as part of the Chicago based Invenergy's Forward Energy wind project which began operation in March of 2008.  The closest turbine is to the Wirtz home is less than 1300 feet from their door.

  “Last night it was whining,” said Ann. “It wasn’t just the whoosh whoosh whoosh or the roaring. It was a high pitched whine. And I don’t just hear them, I can feel them.”

She describes a feeling like a beat in her head, a pulse that matches the turbine’s rhythm. “Last night was really bad,” she said.

 She says she knows which nights are going to be loud by which way the turbine blades are facing, and her family dreads the nights when the wind is out of the west. “That’s when they are the loudest.”

 Jason said he found out there was a wind farm planned for his area from a neighbor he ran into at the post office. “He asked me if I knew anything about the turbines coming in. I didn’t.” Jason came home and mentioned it to Ann.

  “When I first heard about it I wasn’t that alarmed.” says Ann, “People were saying how bad they could be, but I just didn’t believe them at first.”

 She assumed the turbines would be sited much further away from her home, unaware of the controversy over the setbacks approved by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin which allows turbines to be sited close as 1000 feet to the homes of people like the Wirtzes.

 “All those orange flags they put in were way back there. I was thinking it wouldn’t be too bad. And then when that access road started coming in so close I said, ‘what the heck is going on?’

 Meanwhile, Jason had been attending town meetings and learning more about the project. The more he learned, the more worried he became. Five months before the turbines went up, the Wirtz family decided to sell their house. 

 They called people who had let them know they’d be interested in buying it. “When they found out about the turbines,” said Ann, “They weren’t interested anymore.”

 The Wirtz family prepared the house to put on the market. In November of 2007, the home, sitting on eight acres, was appraised for $320,000.  But this once sought-after property could find no buyers. “As soon as people found out about the wind farm coming in,” says Ann.  “That was it. And once they started building the roads to the turbines, forget it. They’d ask what that road was for, we’d tell them and we’d never hear from them again.”

 After the turbines went up, interested buyers stopped showing up altogether.

 “We tried to find another realtor,” said Ann,  “They’d ask ‘is it near the wind turbines?’ and when they found out it was, they wouldn’t even bother to come out to the house to look at it. One realtor told me it wasn’t worth her marketing dollars to even list it because if it was in the wind farm she knew she couldn’t sell it. I mean have you ever heard of a real estate agent turning down a chance to sell a house?”

 Another realtor said they would have to price it under $200,000 to get anyone to even look at it. “At that price we were going to be $50,000 worse than when we started, “ said Ann. “And that didn’t include the 12 years of work we put into the place.”

 But the Wirtzes were increasingly anxious to get away from the turbines. While Jason, who works nights, wasn’t having much trouble with the turbine noise, it was keeping Ann and her children from sleeping well at night. They were tired all the time. They were also getting frequent headaches.

 And there was trouble with their animals as well. The Wirtz family raise alpaca and have a breeding herd. Ann says the Alpaca became jumpy the first day the turbines went on line. “Normally they are so calm. But the day the towers started up, they seemed to panic. They were on their back legs right away.”

 Ann says the herd had always been docile and healthy, with no breeding problems. Since the wind farm started up, their temperament has changed and none of the females have been able to carry a pregnancy to full term. “ They’re nervous all the time now. I can’t prove anything but I do know my animals. And I really felt something was wrong. All the years we’ve had them we’ve never had a problem.”

 At night herd shelters in the large metal shed behind the Wirtz home. When the turbines are loud, Ann says the sound echoes inside the shed and the metal vibrates and hums. “The noise in here gets just unbelievable. When the tin starts to vibrate in here, they can’t stand it. I have to find them a better home. This is torture for them.”

 The same turbine noise has driven Ann out of her own bedroom “I can’t stand to be in that room anymore. I don’t sleep at all. My sleep has been terrible.” Instead she sleeps on the couch where a fan on their pellet stove helps counter the turbine noise. “My number one complaint is how tired I am all the time,” says Ann, “I never had that before, ever.”

 Says Jason, “We don’t have air conditioning, we didn’t want it and we didn’t need it. In the summer we just opened the windows and let cross breezes cool the house. But the first summer with the turbine noise we had to shut the windows and turn on the fan. We couldn’t stand it.”

 After one of the children was recently diagnosed with a severe stress-related illness, the Wirtzes decided they’d had enough. They decided the health of their family was more important than keeping their home, and they are abandoning it.

 “Now, after all the trouble we’ve had living here” said Ann, “ If a family showed up and wanted to buy the place and they had kids, I don’t think I could sell it to them. Knowing what I know about living here, I just don’t think I could put another family through this.”

  They are now looking for a place in a nearby village. “We were born and raised in the country but we’re thinking of moving to Oakfield because they aren’t going to plop a 400 foot turbine in the middle of the village, says Jason. “And I know I’m going to have to drive by this place every day on my way to work.  It’s going to make me sick to see it, but I can’t stay here anymore.”

 Ann adds, “I say we move near whoever it is that decides on the setbacks because you know they’ll never have a turbine by their place”

 Jason and Ann sit at the dining room table and point out the elaborate woodwork they’d stripped and re-finished by hand. Jason holds a picture of the farmhouse from happier times. Earlier that day they’d met with the people at the bank to let them know they were giving up their home.

 Jason says, “At least we’re young enough to start over. My mom, she doesn’t have much money and now she has turbines around her house. She said, ‘This house was my retirement,’ Her and my dad put everything into that house.  Now I don’t know what she’s going to do.”

Jason says, “ The quality of life we had here is just gone. I grew up here and I loved it here. But I don’t anymore. ”

 

CLICK HERE TO WATCH WIND SITING COUNCIL MEETINGS AT WISCONSIN EYE WEBSITE

Sound, shadow standards scare wind developers

SOURCE:  The Daily Reporter, dailyreporter.com

June 14, 2010

By Paul Snyder

Environmental consultants can count the minutes a home is affected by the strobelike flickers of a wind turbine’s shadow.

They can measure the decibels of the rhythmic thrum of turbine blades cutting through the air.

They can use those flicker and sound measurements to determine the best placement for wind farms.

But, wind farm developers argue, basing placement on those tests means sacrificing the one thing the industry needs to build in Wisconsin: certainty. Establishing setback distances would give developers that certainty, said Jim Naleid, managing partner for Holmen-based AgWind Energy Partners LLC.

“The problem with issues relating to sound and shadow flicker is that you run into a series of unending tests,” he said. “You don’t know at what cost those tests will come, and that’s the problem.”

It can cost as much as $15,000 and take as long as a month to run a computer program that studies the flicker, said Bryan Wheler, project manager for Hershey, Pa.-based ARM Group Inc., an environmental consulting firm that runs shadow flicker and sound tests for wind farm projects. He said sound tests take two to three months and can cost as much as $30,000.

“It’s not an unending series of tests,” Wheler said.

Those tests lend logic to turbine placement that arbitrary setbacks cannot, said Doug Zweizig, co-chairman of the state’s Wind Siting Council, which is developing turbine placement recommendations for wind farms that generate less than 100 megawatts of electricity.

“A setback is just a very crude attempt to deal with issues relating to noise and shadow flicker,” he said. “If the real problem is something like noise, then why don’t we just deal with that?”

The council, Zweizig said, will consider a proposal to restrict turbine noise and shadow flicker on properties that do not host turbines. The proposal would limit shadow flicker to 25 hours per year. It also would set a 50-decibel daytime limit and 45-decibel limit at night.

The drawback to establishing a setback distance, Wheler said, is that it could limit wind farm development. If the council, for example, established a 2,000-foot setback from property lines, he said, developers lose the opportunity to account for variables.

“What if there’s a property closer than 2,000 feet that’s down in a valley where they’ll never see shadow flicker?” Wheler said. “What if there are trees and vegetation in between the turbine and house that limits shadow flicker? You still have developers saying, ‘Well, we don’t have 2,000 feet here. Let’s move on.’”

Those variables create unnecessary complications for projects, said Jason Yates, contracts manager for Elgin-based EcoEnergy LLC. The industry needs a reliable standard, he said.

“Because maybe there are issues with 10 of 40 turbines, so you have to run a new set of tests,” Yates said. “It’s just nonending battles.”

If the council expands the guidelines beyond setback distances, Yates said, it will create more uncertainty in Wisconsin’s wind market.

That, Naleid said, would scare away developers.

“Until there is some kind of standard,” he said, “developers are not going to do business here.”



WIND FARM WILL BE INVASIVE TO FARMS

SOURCE Wisconsin State Journal, host.madison.com

June 3, 2010

Regarding the State Journal editorial on May 25 titled “Wind turbines fit with farms”: As a resident of the town of Scott in northeast Columbia County, I can tell you the Glacier Hills Energy Park is not like the wind project at Montfort in Iowa County, which you featured in a photograph.

When Florida Power and Light first proposed a wind farm to our family, the idea was to place a row of turbines on an area we call the high line. This sounded like an idea worth pursuing. Seven years later, with WE Energies in control, the project has 90 very large turbines in a scattered pattern that are invasive to everyone’s environment in this area.

Contrary to what you think, there will be a large amount of very productive farm land out of production, or production will be compromised.

I heard very compelling testimony at a PSC hearing against this turbine arrangement. After the hearing, I felt the PSC would never allow this project. The evidence appears to have been disregarded.

It is alarming what a large company with government support can do to ordinary people. As a farming family, we could have turbines on our property in the future, but we now doubt if the money is worth the cost.

Sharon Prochnow, Cambria

SECOND FEATURE

COUPLE SETTLE LAWSUIT ON WIND TURBINE NOISE

SOURCE: Altoona Mirror

By Kay Stephens and David Hurst

June 4, 2010

HOLLIDAYSBURG - The lawsuit between a Blair County couple and a company that operates Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm has been settled.

"All I can say about the resolution is that it's confidential," Pittsburgh attorney Bradley S. Tupi said Thursday. "I can't talk about the settlement."

Tupi represented Todd and Jill Stull, the Portage RD couple who sued in May 2008, complaining that the wind turbine noise had destroyed their quality of life.

They moved to the Juniata Township farm in 1992, and the turbine farm, which borders their property and spans five townships, went into operation in 2007.

The court case between the Stulls and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC was on track for a jury trial in July before Blair County Judge Daniel Milliron.

Tupi recently filed the decision on the settlement, with no details, at the Blair County Courthouse.

Allegheny Ridge attorney Jason Richey, who has been contesting the complaints and challenging the Stulls' requests for information, filed nothing at the courthouse regarding the settlement.

Richey and the Stulls did not return phone calls for comment.

Everyone involved in the case has agreed to the confidentiality clause, Tupi said.

The Portage Township supervisors were aware of the settlement and its confidentiality clause.

"The township didn't have to pay anything," Supervisor Kenneth Trimbath said. "This was between [Allegheny Ridge] and the Stulls."

The township paid about $420 in legal fees to attorney Walter Wall in connection with the lawsuit. It called the money well spent.

"We had our lawyers involved to keep us out of it," township Manager Bruce Brunett said, "And it worked."

Juniata Township supervisors previously tried to help resolve the Stulls' complaint by working with the wind farm operators and then by hiring an independent company to measure the turbine noise.

But after the study came back showing the wind turbine noise lower than levels permitted by ordinance, solicitor Michael Routch advised supervisors that the township was not in a position to do more.

Other Juniata Township residents, in addition to the Stulls, have complained about turbine noise from the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm.

"Tell them to contact me," Tupi said.

SOME BACKGROUND ON THE LAWSUIT:

Wind experts duped local officials, Blue Knob couple’s lawsuit claims

SOURCE The Tribune Democrat 

December 24, 2008

By KATHY MELLOTT

HOLLIDAYSBURG — New documents filed in an ongoing civil lawsuit by a Portage-area couple against the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm say that wind energy experts duped local officials into believing the turbine sound was insignificant.

Todd and Jill Stull of the Blue Knob area say that developer Gamesa Energy USA and owner Babcock & Brown misled local officials by supporting development of an ordinance addressing higher noise levels.

The Stulls filed an amended suit Tuesday. The ordinance establishes a maximum sound level of 45 decibels and does not address the lower frequency noises, including turbine vibration that is said to cause health and other problems suffered by the Stulls.

Mrs. Stull, holding a bottle of water inside her home, can feel the turbines’ vibrations throughout her hand, their lawyer said.

Nine of the 40 windmills in Phase One of the planned three-phase wind farm are within a mile of the Stulls’ home, which is situated where the Portage, Juniata and Greenfield township lines converge.

Three years ago, ordinances established that turbines must be a minimum 2,000 feet from residences and not exceed a noise level of 45 decibels. They were adopted by Portage, Washington and Cresson townships, Cambria County, and Juniata and Greenfield townships, Blair County.

The Stulls filed the civil suit in April and, earlier this month, while a Blair judge kept the lawsuit intact, he dismissed several counts, including one claim that Gamesa created a public nuisance.

He allowed to stand a claim that Allegheny Ridge created a private nuisance.

But Pittsburgh Bradley Tupi, representing the Stulls, was told by Judge Daniel Milliron to provide additional evidence in order for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim to stand.

In the amendment, Tupi claimed the companies knew the turbines would be noisy and failed to tell local officials – whom he said were depending on the wind companies for guidance in developing local laws.

“Brian Lammers and/or other Allegheny representatives told the Portage Township officials that the wind turbines would be quiet,” Tupi said in the lawsuit, referring to a May 2005 conversation with then-Supervisors James Decort and Richard Olshavsky.

“Lammers told Portage Township officials that there would be no noise or minimal noise from the wind turbines,” Tupi said in the document.

The Stulls said the turbines have had a significantly negative impact on their sleep, health, quality of life and enjoyment of their 100-acre property purchased in 1992.

They describe the sound from the equipment as a “whooshing” and “screeching.’’

Lammers told officials the windmill noise would be equivalent to a refrigerator.

Representatives from Babcock & Brown and Gamesa could not be immediately reached for comment Wednesday. In the past, Gamesa officials have said they would not comment on the lawsuit.

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft rules for siting wind turbines in our state. The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes.

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket

HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR PSC TODAY?

The PSC is asking for public comment on the recently approved draft rules for siting wind turbines in our state. The setback recommended in this draft is 1250 feet from non-participating homes.

CLICK HERE to get a copy of the draft siting rules approved by the commissioners on May 14th, and to find out more about the Wind Siting Council

CLICK HERE and type in docket number 1-AC-231 to read what's been posted so far.

CLICK HERE to leave a comment on the Wind Siting Council Docket

Residents sue wind companies

SOURCE: michigansthumb.com

HURON COUNTY — Citing a loss of property value and quality of life as a result of the Ubly area Michigan Wind I development, 16 Huron County residents filed a lawsuit earlier this month against the wind project’s various companies.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed May 11 in Huron County Circuit Court against John Deere Renewables, Deere & Company (John Deere), Noble Environmental Power, LLC, Michigan Wind I, LLC (Noble Thumb Windpark I) and RMT, Inc., the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities.

The defendants and plaintiffs

Plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit are David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber.

The majority of the plaintiffs previously filed complaints to the county regarding the Michigan Wind I development. Also, over the past year, many of them have attended county board of commissioners and planning commission meetings about this issue.

Though the complaints have been discussed in numerous meetings, there still is no complaint resolution at the county level — something that’s upset many. County officials, however, have said the board of commissioners soon will have a complaint resolution process in place.

Plaintiffs, during previous meetings, also have asked the county to amend its wind zoning ordinance so others in the future are not negatively affected as they say they have been.

According to records from the Huron County Clerk’s Office, all but four of the plaintiffs were part of a petition submitted in October 2005 that contained 1,846 signatures and asked for a review of the wind overlay zoning amendment, which was adopted by the county in the summer of 2005.

“We are simply trying to protect those people without contracts with the wind companies, those people who will not benefit in any way from the wind turbines — but who will have to live with the turbines for years to come,” said Angela Weber in a press release Residents for Sound Economics and Planning (RSEP) issued when the petition was submitted.

At the time RSEP submitted the petition to Huron County Clerk Peggy Koehler, the group claimed it was not an attempt to stop a wind park from being developed in the Ubly area. Instead, it was intended to create “better and more fair zoning for all citizens of Huron County,” according to a statement the group issued in October 2005. The issue ended up in court, as RSEP sued Koehler in November 2005 because she determined the petitions submitted by the group were inadequate. Circuit Court Judge M. Richard Knoblock ruled in favor of the county clerk.

Noble Environmental Power, LLC then proceeded with the development of Michigan Wind I, which consists of 42 turbines and encapsulates more than 150 parcels owned by 96 different landowners.

The project was sold to John Deere Wind Energy in October 2008, and the park officially went into commercial operation a few months later.

That’s when the plaintiffs state the quality of their life and property values began diminishing.

Count I: Private nuisance

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim they have property rights and privileges with respect to the use and enjoyment of their property, and the defendants interfered with those rights by creating, through the operation of the wind farm, “significant and material intrusions upon the plaintiffs’ property.”

Intrusions detailed in the lawsuit include: • Low frequency noise and subaudible infrasound and/or impulse noise created by and emitted from the wind turbines, which range as close as 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.

• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.

• Amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequency ranges emitted from the turbines.

• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.

The lawsuit states the interference and invasions caused by the conduct of the wind energy companies was either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and negligent conduct.

“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit states.

Physical harm and negative health effects listed in the lawsuit included: Inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea, and other physiological and cognitive effects.

The lawsuit notes the symptoms experienced by David and Marilyn Peplinski’s family forced them to rent an apartment away from the wind farm in order to avoid the adverse health effects.

“Despite the conditions caused by the continued operation of the wind farm and the resulting health conditions suffered by the plaintiffs, John Deere, John Deere Renewables and Michigan Wind I continue to operate and/or profit from the wind farm,” the lawsuit states.

Count II: Public nuisance

“Based on the aforementioned allegations, the actions of (the defendants) constitute an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states. “Said actions resulted in the existence or creation of a dangerous condition to plaintiffs and other members of the general public and further resulted in significant harm to plaintiffs.”

In the portion of the lawsuit alleging the local wind park is a public nuisance, the lawsuit states the plaintiffs suffered harm and personal injuries different from the harm suffered by the general public, specifically, the increased harm to their health and well being that resulted from the close proximity of the turbines to their primary residences.

“The actions of (the defendants) further created a nuisance in fact, which was either intentional or negligent, by causing a hazardous or dangerous situation,” the lawsuit states.

Count III: Negligent design of wind farm

The lawsuit claims the wind companies had a duty to use reasonable care in the design and construction of the wind farm, specifically in relation to selecting turbine locations.

That duty was breached by the defendants, the lawsuit claims, because the companies ignored available data regarding the probability of negative health effects associated with placing the turbines in close proximity to the plaintiffs’ homes.

Also, the lawsuit references a noise assessment included in the project’s site plan review application that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise.

The lawsuit cites portions of the noise assessment stating, “in general, it is undesirable for any home, particularly that of a non-participant, to be on or inside a 45 dBA contour,” and “the probability of complaints from any project opponent exposed to this project noise level would be extremely high.”

Turbine noise measured at four of the plaintiffs’ homes ranged from 45 to 51 dBA, according to results from a noise study paid for by John Deere last fall that are included in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the wind companies “negligently, carelessly and recklessly” sited the wind turbines in a way that increased the negative health effects and other damages. Other allegations state the wind companies negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to construct the turbines at a safe distance from the plaintiffs’ residences, and to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unsafe condition and unreasonable risk of harm.

Count IV: Negligent misrepresentation

The lawsuit claims the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners.

“(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.

Huron County relied on the information from the wind companies when approving the project, the lawsuit states.

“(The defendants) should have known that the information it supplied to Huron County would directly impact the residents of Huron County, including plaintiffs,” the lawsuit adds.

Suit does not name any government entity

According to the Huron County Clerk’s Office, there have been no lawsuits filed against any government entities relating to any Thumb area wind park.

In the lawsuit against the wind companies, the plaintiffs are being represented by Craig W. Horn, of Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner, P.L.C. in Saginaw. Despite numerous attempts, Horn was unavailable for comment as of press time.

Ken Golden, Deere & Company Strategic Public Relations director, on Friday told the Tribune: “By company policy, Deere & Company does not make comment on pending litigation.”

The defendants have 28 days from the May 11 filing date to respond to the complaint, and then a hearing date will be scheduled, according to the Huron County Circuit Court Office.

The lawsuit states the plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

 

SECOND FEATURE: ANOTHER CHAPTER OF "WIND DEVELOPERS BEHAVING BADLY"

The following is a candid quote from an article in Renewable Energy World Magazine which outlines current difficulties faced by wind developers.

 Wind Farms: Are All the Best Spots Taken?

 “Another problem is that landowners have become increasingly savvy about the value of their property.

Farmers are driving harder bargains with wind developers for purchase or lease of their land.

A decade ago 'nobody knew what a fair price was, but as long it was not a dollar less than the guy down the road, they thought it was fair.

Now with the internet and more awareness of what these terms and conditions are, it has leveled the playing field', said Jim Tynion, a partner with the law firm Foley & Lardner, where he is chair of the Energy Industry Team.”

READ FULL TEXT HERE